Comments

Re the OP, I don't agree with this analysis at all. Everyone who voted Tory knew that they were committed to Brexit and probably a hard Brexit at that - Remain voters were not under any illusions so I can't see why they would suddenly abandon the Tories if they do exactly what they said they would. Remain voters supported the Tories because they obviously thought that there were things more important than Brexit.

On the other hand, Labour have a much bigger issue as the Remainers seemed to be under the illusion that Corbyn was going to abandon Brexit and the Leavers thought he promised the same as May. So there are definitely going to be some very disenchanted Labour voters as neither are going to get what they (thought) they were promised.

The main risk to the Tories is selling out to the EU to the extent that the Leave voters feel betrayed. They will either switch back to UKIP or, much more likely, will not turn out.

Re the OP, I don't agree with this analysis at all. Everyone who voted Tory knew that they were committed to Brexit and probably a hard Brexit at that - Remain voters were not under any illusions so I can't see why they would suddenly abandon the Tories if they do exactly what they said they would. Remain voters supported the Tories because they obviously thought that there were things more important than Brexit.

On the other hand, Labour have a much bigger issue as the Remainers seemed to be under the illusion that Corbyn was going to abandon Brexit and the Leavers thought he promised the same as May. So there are definitely going to be some very disenchanted Labour voters as neither are going to get what they (thought) they were promised.

The main risk to the Tories is selling out to the EU to the extent that the Leave voters feel betrayed. They will either switch back to UKIP or, much more likely, will not turn out.

Complacent. 3.2m is a lot of CON voters.

You sound like the many on here who were totally convinced that the UKIP vote would almost all got to CON last June 8th. It didn't

Re the OP, I don't agree with this analysis at all. Everyone who voted Tory knew that they were committed to Brexit and probably a hard Brexit at that - Remain voters were not under any illusions so I can't see why they would suddenly abandon the Tories if they do exactly what they said they would. Remain voters supported the Tories because they obviously thought that there were things more important than Brexit.

On the other hand, Labour have a much bigger issue as the Remainers seemed to be under the illusion that Corbyn was going to abandon Brexit and the Leavers thought he promised the same as May. So there are definitely going to be some very disenchanted Labour voters as neither are going to get what they (thought) they were promised.

The main risk to the Tories is selling out to the EU to the extent that the Leave voters feel betrayed. They will either switch back to UKIP or, much more likely, will not turn out.

The EU didn't feature much in the 2017 election. And both parties were still a bit vague on it. By the next one the Tories will have delivered a big steaming pile of Brexit. The verdict will be due then.

Re the OP, I don't agree with this analysis at all. Everyone who voted Tory knew that they were committed to Brexit and probably a hard Brexit at that - Remain voters were not under any illusions so I can't see why they would suddenly abandon the Tories if they do exactly what they said they would. Remain voters supported the Tories because they obviously thought that there were things more important than Brexit.

On the other hand, Labour have a much bigger issue as the Remainers seemed to be under the illusion that Corbyn was going to abandon Brexit and the Leavers thought he promised the same as May. So there are definitely going to be some very disenchanted Labour voters as neither are going to get what they (thought) they were promised.

The main risk to the Tories is selling out to the EU to the extent that the Leave voters feel betrayed. They will either switch back to UKIP or, much more likely, will not turn out.

Complacent. 3.2m is a lot of CON voters.

Who voted for a Brexit manifesto........It's Labour Leave voters who might be feeling put out.....

Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit plan hasn't gone down well in Labour's heartlandsShoppers in Barnsley market in South Yorkshire didn’t warm to his conversion to “a customs union” with the EU after Brexit...

“If this is what he’s trying to do, it’s opportunistic rather than principled. He may be principled in many ways, but he’s trying to take government by dividing the Tory party and splitting their vote. It’s fairly cynical.”

Veteran Labour MP Frank Field greeted the Corbyn conversion on the road to Brussels as “an impossible dream” and “meaningless”, warning it could cost swathes of seats in Brexit-supporting Labour ­constituencies where voters feel betrayed.

Re the OP, I don't agree with this analysis at all. Everyone who voted Tory knew that they were committed to Brexit and probably a hard Brexit at that - Remain voters were not under any illusions so I can't see why they would suddenly abandon the Tories if they do exactly what they said they would. Remain voters supported the Tories because they obviously thought that there were things more important than Brexit.

On the other hand, Labour have a much bigger issue as the Remainers seemed to be under the illusion that Corbyn was going to abandon Brexit and the Leavers thought he promised the same as May. So there are definitely going to be some very disenchanted Labour voters as neither are going to get what they (thought) they were promised.

The main risk to the Tories is selling out to the EU to the extent that the Leave voters feel betrayed. They will either switch back to UKIP or, much more likely, will not turn out.

The EU didn't feature much in the 2017 election. And both parties were still a bit vague on it. By the next one the Tories will have delivered a big steaming pile of Brexit. The verdict will be due then.

The whole purpose of GE2017 was to give TMay a bigger majority so it would strengthen her negotiating hand.

I don't doubt there are *some* votes up for grabs from the Remain side but a lot of those will have done so unenthusiastically so the number who will actually swing based on the process of the negotiations must be fairly small.

What the Tories have to worry about with those people is what happens if Brexit bollockses up the economy once it actually happens; That's where moderate conservatives expecting economic competence would turn on them, especially if Labour got over its Corbyn phase or the LibDems perked up. But TMay has her hands full just making it to the end of the negotiation without her party stringing her up from a lamppost, so she doesn't have the luxury of worrying about how Brexit actually works in practice.

Corbyn's speech for all the hot air, actually didnt change very much except that Labour are also looking at having cake and eating it. Some of it may sway a few waverers who voted Blue (or even Lib Dem). For me the real challenge will be from Corbyn and the Front bench making speeches that put the Tories under pressure to respond/ come up with a clear alternative.

Mays BREXIT vagueness is no longer an option and I wonder whether this cranking up of Labour's approach could force the Tories hands (which they dont want) and possibly hasten the demise of May as the Tory "agree to disagree" approach breaks down

Re the OP, I don't agree with this analysis at all. Everyone who voted Tory knew that they were committed to Brexit and probably a hard Brexit at that - Remain voters were not under any illusions so I can't see why they would suddenly abandon the Tories if they do exactly what they said they would. Remain voters supported the Tories because they obviously thought that there were things more important than Brexit.

On the other hand, Labour have a much bigger issue as the Remainers seemed to be under the illusion that Corbyn was going to abandon Brexit and the Leavers thought he promised the same as May. So there are definitely going to be some very disenchanted Labour voters as neither are going to get what they (thought) they were promised.

The main risk to the Tories is selling out to the EU to the extent that the Leave voters feel betrayed. They will either switch back to UKIP or, much more likely, will not turn out.

Complacent. 3.2m is a lot of CON voters.

Who voted for a Brexit manifesto........It's Labour Leave voters who might be feeling put out.....

Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit plan hasn't gone down well in Labour's heartlandsShoppers in Barnsley market in South Yorkshire didn’t warm to his conversion to “a customs union” with the EU after Brexit...

“If this is what he’s trying to do, it’s opportunistic rather than principled. He may be principled in many ways, but he’s trying to take government by dividing the Tory party and splitting their vote. It’s fairly cynical.”

Veteran Labour MP Frank Field greeted the Corbyn conversion on the road to Brussels as “an impossible dream” and “meaningless”, warning it could cost swathes of seats in Brexit-supporting Labour ­constituencies where voters feel betrayed...

Kate Hoey seemed pretty happy with it.

I think it mildly absurd to argue that Corbyn's position is weaker, and May's stronger, than before last year's election. This is a battle of the unpalatables,so you're going to find plenty of disobliging quotes about either, without looking too hard.

Without the emergence of a better alternative, it's the relative movement that will count.

Re the OP, I don't agree with this analysis at all. Everyone who voted Tory knew that they were committed to Brexit and probably a hard Brexit at that - Remain voters were not under any illusions so I can't see why they would suddenly abandon the Tories if they do exactly what they said they would. Remain voters supported the Tories because they obviously thought that there were things more important than Brexit.

On the other hand, Labour have a much bigger issue as the Remainers seemed to be under the illusion that Corbyn was going to abandon Brexit and the Leavers thought he promised the same as May. So there are definitely going to be some very disenchanted Labour voters as neither are going to get what they (thought) they were promised.

The main risk to the Tories is selling out to the EU to the extent that the Leave voters feel betrayed. They will either switch back to UKIP or, much more likely, will not turn out.

Complacent. 3.2m is a lot of CON voters.

Who voted for a Brexit manifesto........It's Labour Leave voters who might be feeling put out.....

Jeremy Corbyn's Brexit plan hasn't gone down well in Labour's heartlandsShoppers in Barnsley market in South Yorkshire didn’t warm to his conversion to “a customs union” with the EU after Brexit...

“If this is what he’s trying to do, it’s opportunistic rather than principled. He may be principled in many ways, but he’s trying to take government by dividing the Tory party and splitting their vote. It’s fairly cynical.”

Veteran Labour MP Frank Field greeted the Corbyn conversion on the road to Brussels as “an impossible dream” and “meaningless”, warning it could cost swathes of seats in Brexit-supporting Labour ­constituencies where voters feel betrayed...

Stockholm syndrome can be intense. But there must be a limit to the amount to which Remain voters can be labelled traitors, saboteurs and mutineers before they jump ship.

To Corbyn? You really don't know Tory voters.....

When they get the ballot paper in front of them, they will have 3 choices, vote for a party which doesn't represent their views and keeps insulting them, vote for another party that does but has always been seen as the enemy, or not voting at all. .. 3.2 million voters, hmm!

Stockholm syndrome can be intense. But there must be a limit to the amount to which Remain voters can be labelled traitors, saboteurs and mutineers before they jump ship.

I do get the impression that the flow of denigration does seem to be one way with the remarkably silly implication that Remainers are less patriotic. Speaking of bull shit, I see that Trump has just said that if he had been at the Florida school he would, armed or not, have charged in to confront the gunman.

Re the OP, I don't agree with this analysis at all. Everyone who voted Tory knew that they were committed to Brexit and probably a hard Brexit at that - Remain voters were not under any illusions so I can't see why they would suddenly abandon the Tories if they do exactly what they said they would. Remain voters supported the Tories because they obviously thought that there were things more important than Brexit.

On the other hand, Labour have a much bigger issue as the Remainers seemed to be under the illusion that Corbyn was going to abandon Brexit and the Leavers thought he promised the same as May. So there are definitely going to be some very disenchanted Labour voters as neither are going to get what they (thought) they were promised.

The main risk to the Tories is selling out to the EU to the extent that the Leave voters feel betrayed. They will either switch back to UKIP or, much more likely, will not turn out.

The EU didn't feature much in the 2017 election. And both parties were still a bit vague on it. By the next one the Tories will have delivered a big steaming pile of Brexit. The verdict will be due then.

The whole purpose of GE2017 was to give TMay a bigger majority so it would strengthen her negotiating hand.

Stockholm syndrome can be intense. But there must be a limit to the amount to which Remain voters can be labelled traitors, saboteurs and mutineers before they jump ship.

To Corbyn? You really don't know Tory voters.....

vote for another party that does but has always been seen as the enemy

For true Remainers any type of Brexit - be it hard or soft-boiled is going to be pretty unappealing......and then there will be the rest of the Labour manifesto. I doubt 'Soft Boiled Brexit and Socialism in One Country' will sway many Tories.....

Stockholm syndrome can be intense. But there must be a limit to the amount to which Remain voters can be labelled traitors, saboteurs and mutineers before they jump ship.

To Corbyn? You really don't know Tory voters.....

I generally vote Conservative (though have voted most ways), live in a safe Conservative seat, and somewhat reluctantly voted Remain in the referendum. The *only* things keeping me even remotely considering voting Conservative are:

*) Corbyn.*) I have a rather feisty, independent-minded Conservative MP.*) Cable is leading the Lib Dems down the plughole of irrelevance.

Everything else about the current Conservative Party is a massive turn-off. If there was an independent candidate I liked, they'd get my vote.

Brexit has consumed the Conservative Party. It's the only thing they think and talk about, meaning the other problems that face the country are not getting dealt with. It is full of people I detest, such as JRM, people I laugh at, such as Boris, and incompetents, such as May. People I rate, such as Rory Stewart, are invisible.

There is no positive reason for me to vote Conservative, only negative ones away from the others.

This is not a healthy state for the party to be in. And yes, I can see people who rate the EU higher than I do swinging over to Labour. Corbyn may be a bastard (and I think he is), but at least he has a vision for the country and is not obsessed with the EU ...

Stockholm syndrome can be intense. But there must be a limit to the amount to which Remain voters can be labelled traitors, saboteurs and mutineers before they jump ship.

To Corbyn? You really don't know Tory voters.....

vote for another party that does but has always been seen as the enemy

For true Remainers any type of Brexit - be it hard or soft-boiled is going to be pretty unappealing......and then there will be the rest of the Labour manifesto. I doubt 'Soft Boiled Brexit and Socialism in One Country' will sway many Tories.....

Lets not forget that a lot of the 2017 Tory vote were new to the party, not lifelong blue to the core lifelong Tory voters.

While direct switchers to Corbyn's Labour would have double value, switchers to LD, Green, DNV or UKIP all help reduce the majority.

Reputation Management is becoming increasingly important to many who would prefer certain things to be "forgotten" without the danger of the publicity from the court case against a search engine company.

Stockholm syndrome can be intense. But there must be a limit to the amount to which Remain voters can be labelled traitors, saboteurs and mutineers before they jump ship.

To Corbyn? You really don't know Tory voters.....

When they get the ballot paper in front of them, they will have 3 choices, vote for a party which doesn't represent their views and keeps insulting them, vote for another party that does but has always been seen as the enemy, or not voting at all. .. 3.2 million voters, hmm!

Interesting that you think there will be only Labour and Liberal Democrat candidates on the ballot paper. I have to say that seems unlikely. I know the Conservatives are in a mess but I expect them to stand in all seats at the next election.

Fevered reactions to the customs union move have obscured the fact that Corbyn delivered the most explicitly pro-Brexit speech of his leadership of the party. Its central premise was that the hazards of leaving the EU have been exaggerated, and that the only real risk comes from the whole thing being done by wicked Tories.

Corbyn’s view is that, quite aside from a democratic duty to honour the referendum result, Brexit is a sensible, indeed desirable goal, just as long as it is handled by a party of the left. This has long been implicit in the Labour leader’s actions. Its explicit declaration will still disappoint anyone harbouring hopes that the opposition is engaged in some cunning guerrilla sabotage, sniping tactically at the Tories and holding back from a full-throated remain cry only because public opinion is unready to hear it. Corbyn’s cards have come away from his chest, and he’s holding a flush of leave.

As a thought experiment, assume that the idea of arming teachers in US schools is introduced. How long after its implementation do you think it would be before there was a mass shooting in a school by a teacher with a government-supplied weapon?

Re the OP, I don't agree with this analysis at all. Everyone who voted Tory knew that they were committed to Brexit and probably a hard Brexit at that - Remain voters were not under any illusions so I can't see why they would suddenly abandon the Tories if they do exactly what they said they would. Remain voters supported the Tories because they obviously thought that there were things more important than Brexit.

On the other hand, Labour have a much bigger issue as the Remainers seemed to be under the illusion that Corbyn was going to abandon Brexit and the Leavers thought he promised the same as May. So there are definitely going to be some very disenchanted Labour voters as neither are going to get what they (thought) they were promised.

The main risk to the Tories is selling out to the EU to the extent that the Leave voters feel betrayed. They will either switch back to UKIP or, much more likely, will not turn out.

The EU didn't feature much in the 2017 election. And both parties were still a bit vague on it. By the next one the Tories will have delivered a big steaming pile of Brexit. The verdict will be due then.

Indeed. It will have been delivered, and the election will be fought on who governs the country - a hapless, worn out Conservative Party bereft of ideas, or a hard left socialist government led by a cabal of Marxists, stalinists, anti-semites and terrorist sympathisers. 2022 won't be about Brexit. But neither was 2017, as the 3.2m con voters who were remainers demonstrates.

Corbyn is a marmite candidate and he's hit a ceiling on the number of people who will vote for him. The biggest danger to the Tories is failing to deliver Brexit or delivering it in such a way it leads to abstentions or a Ukip resurgence. It is only in the heads of the Brexit obsessed that a pivot towards soft Brexit or a second referendum looks like a vote winner for the Conservatives. Or, for that matter, Labour. Under ordinary circumstances you could see a lot of those Con remainers going Lib Dems but not while a vote for the Lib Dems stands a chance of letting Corbyn in.

As a thought experiment, assume that the idea of arming teachers in US schools is introduced. How long after its implementation do you think it would be before there was a mass shooting in a school by a teacher with a government-supplied weapon?

As a thought experiment, assume that the idea of arming teachers in US schools is introduced. How long after its implementation do you think it would be before there was a mass shooting in a school by a teacher with a government-supplied weapon?

Rare - once every 20 years or so maybe.

There are over 3 million teachers in the US. I’m sure they have their share of troubled souls.

Fevered reactions to the customs union move have obscured the fact that Corbyn delivered the most explicitly pro-Brexit speech of his leadership of the party. Its central premise was that the hazards of leaving the EU have been exaggerated, and that the only real risk comes from the whole thing being done by wicked Tories.

Corbyn’s view is that, quite aside from a democratic duty to honour the referendum result, Brexit is a sensible, indeed desirable goal, just as long as it is handled by a party of the left. This has long been implicit in the Labour leader’s actions. Its explicit declaration will still disappoint anyone harbouring hopes that the opposition is engaged in some cunning guerrilla sabotage, sniping tactically at the Tories and holding back from a full-throated remain cry only because public opinion is unready to hear it. Corbyn’s cards have come away from his chest, and he’s holding a flush of leave.

This is why it's so puzzling that some of Labour's supporters believe Labour represents the views of Tory remainers. It clearly doesn't. And given a choice between risking a Corbyn government based on lies and naked populism implemented by a bunch of inept and frankly very stupid administrators with no experience of government or voting for a party buggering up a process I hadn't voted for - well, as one of the 3.2 million that was a really easy choice.

I think the main effect of Corbyn's speech and the Government's continued vacillation will be indirect - people who felt that the Tories were maybe nasty but competent while Corbyn was nuts are tending to see it as a more nuanced choice (cf. Josiah Jessop below, though he's not poised to vote Labour himself).

We could do with some recent polling on how important people feel Brexit is and how much it will influence their voters. Less than we think or would like, I fancy.

I think the main effect of Corbyn's speech and the Government's continued vacillation will be indirect - people who felt that the Tories were maybe nasty but competent while Corbyn was nuts are tending to see it as a more nuanced choice (cf. Josiah Jessop below, though he's not poised to vote Labour himself).

We could do with some recent polling on how important people feel Brexit is and how much it will influence their voters. Less than we think or would like, I fancy.

It's very difficult to see how Brexit is a significant theme at the next election. By then it will have happened and the transition will almost certainly be over too. There may be some punishment for Leavers in Remain seats if the Remain voters are still angry, but there won't be a mass flux of Leavers to the Tories (which may be why May thought last year was the optimum time to try and cash in on the Northern disaffection with Corbyn).

Economic issues are likely to be paramount and Corbyn remains weak on those. His one hope is that the government are barely doing better at this moment.

As a thought experiment, assume that the idea of arming teachers in US schools is introduced. How long after its implementation do you think it would be before there was a mass shooting in a school by a teacher with a government-supplied weapon?

Rare - once every 20 years or so maybe.

There are over 3 million teachers in the US. I’m sure they have their share of troubled souls.

I would imagine you could get a decent estimate by looking at number of school shootings perpetrated by teachers and then adding on a % based on the fact that they are now more likely since they have guns to hand.

As a thought experiment, assume that the idea of arming teachers in US schools is introduced. How long after its implementation do you think it would be before there was a mass shooting in a school by a teacher with a government-supplied weapon?

Rare - once every 20 years or so maybe.

There are over 3 million teachers in the US. I’m sure they have their share of troubled souls.

They will happen. What's more likely is a teacher getting a gun out in class to show then students, and accidentally firing it.

Fevered reactions to the customs union move have obscured the fact that Corbyn delivered the most explicitly pro-Brexit speech of his leadership of the party. Its central premise was that the hazards of leaving the EU have been exaggerated, and that the only real risk comes from the whole thing being done by wicked Tories.

Corbyn’s view is that, quite aside from a democratic duty to honour the referendum result, Brexit is a sensible, indeed desirable goal, just as long as it is handled by a party of the left. This has long been implicit in the Labour leader’s actions. Its explicit declaration will still disappoint anyone harbouring hopes that the opposition is engaged in some cunning guerrilla sabotage, sniping tactically at the Tories and holding back from a full-throated remain cry only because public opinion is unready to hear it. Corbyn’s cards have come away from his chest, and he’s holding a flush of leave.

Jill Rutter (a contemporary of May's at Oxford, and ousted from Brown's Treasury by his bully boys) of the IOG on Corbyn's speech:

There is plenty in the Corbyn speech for the EU negotiators to dislike. If Labour were in government, Corbyn would be accused of cherry-picking and cake-ism. But the tone — and being in opposition — means he is likely to get an easier ride as the EU waits for Friday.

Fevered reactions to the customs union move have obscured the fact that Corbyn delivered the most explicitly pro-Brexit speech of his leadership of the party. Its central premise was that the hazards of leaving the EU have been exaggerated, and that the only real risk comes from the whole thing being done by wicked Tories.

Corbyn’s view is that, quite aside from a democratic duty to honour the referendum result, Brexit is a sensible, indeed desirable goal, just as long as it is handled by a party of the left. This has long been implicit in the Labour leader’s actions. Its explicit declaration will still disappoint anyone harbouring hopes that the opposition is engaged in some cunning guerrilla sabotage, sniping tactically at the Tories and holding back from a full-throated remain cry only because public opinion is unready to hear it. Corbyn’s cards have come away from his chest, and he’s holding a flush of leave.

It is hard to imagine Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn swapping Brexit confidences, but if it did happen they would find they had a lot in common. Both were chilly remainers who kept the referendum campaign at arm’s length. Both then embraced a leaver’s agenda with an eagerness pro-Europeans found unseemly. May harbours a quietly nationalistic distaste for anything that presumes cultural and political parity between the UK and continentals. Corbyn is steeped in socialist distrust of institutions that uphold free markets. The European Union is too foreign for the Tory leader and too capitalist for the Labour one, but neither wants to be defined by that reaction. They are natural Eurosceptics, not wild Europhobes.

I’m a Tory remain voter and it is a fantasy that I, or indeed any more than a handful of people like me, are going to vote for Corbyn.

A lot of PBers, and Mike Smithson in particular, need to stop looking at the world through the fuzzy lens of a left of centre Remainer. Out there it isn’t like that.....

Likewise a Labour Leaver like me isn't going to vote for the Tories even if Labour go full-on Remain. I voted Leave because of my politics. Brexit doesn't define my politics.

Brexit is a second order issue for me. I have always thought that this is the case for the vast majority of voters, who won't change party merely based on the relative Brexit policies of the blue and red teams.

I’m a Tory remain voter and it is a fantasy that I, or indeed any more than a handful of people like me, are going to vote for Corbyn.

A lot of PBers, and Mike Smithson in particular, need to stop looking at the world through the fuzzy lens of a left of centre Remainer. Out there it isn’t like that.....

Likewise a Labour Leaver like me isn't going to vote for the Tories even if Labour go full-on Remain. I voted Leave because of my politics. Brexit doesn't define my politics.

Brexit is a second order issue for me. I have always thought that this is the case for the vast majority of voters, who won't change party merely based on the relative Brexit policies of the blue and red teams.

I’m a Tory remain voter and it is a fantasy that I, or indeed any more than a handful of people like me, are going to vote for Corbyn.

A lot of PBers, and Mike Smithson in particular, need to stop looking at the world through the fuzzy lens of a left of centre Remainer. Out there it isn’t like that.....

Likewise a Labour Leaver like me isn't going to vote for the Tories even if Labour go full-on Remain. I voted Leave because of my politics. Brexit doesn't define my politics.

Brexit is a second order issue for me. I have always thought that this is the case for the vast majority of voters, who won't change party merely based on the relative Brexit policies of the blue and red teams.

But plenty will. It's much more important than the relatively trivial matter of who will be in government for the next five years.

Is February the 26th the day Labour stopped being a serious party? Here we are, voters, how about this for a terrific wheeze?

We leave the EU and then negotiate, on their terms, to stay in a customs union that we want. We'll have to accept F.O.M and all the other rules they insist on. Or, perhaps, as old Bonehead believes, they will be so grateful, they will give us more opt-outs. Even if Barnier wanted to, it wouldn't be allowed.

I know they think the voters, and leavers in particular, are stupid, but come on..

As a thought experiment, assume that the idea of arming teachers in US schools is introduced. How long after its implementation do you think it would be before there was a mass shooting in a school by a teacher with a government-supplied weapon?

Rare - once every 20 years or so maybe.

There are over 3 million teachers in the US. I’m sure they have their share of troubled souls.

I would imagine you could get a decent estimate by looking at number of school shootings perpetrated by teachers and then adding on a % based on the fact that they are now more likely since they have guns to hand.

There was a case of assault by a teacher in this country eight years ago:

With a gun he might well have killed the boy and maybe gone on a rampage.

But such things are pretty rare.

The key problem with this is it assumes teachers would be willing and able to use their weapons in the case of a shooting. As the police officer's actions in Florida show, that is a reckless assumption.

Trump is possibly the one person who could have used this to tighten gun laws. Just rolling out Texan laws nationwide might be enough. But like a good populist, he told his base what they wanted to hear rather than what they needed to be told.

The next election is likely to be fought around who has the best answers to the problems Brexit has caused or exacerbated. If the Brexit deal turns out to be sub-optimal, it’s hard to see how those who negotiated it will escape blame. What Corbyn’s speech has done is ensured Labour can credibly say in 2022 that it would not have done the Brexit deal the Tories did. That’s all that it needs on that front.

Is February the 26th the day Labour stopped being a serious party? Here we are, voters, how about this for a terrific wheeze?

We leave the EU and then negotiate, on their terms, to stay in a customs union that we want. We'll have to accept F.O.M and all the other rules they insist on. Or, perhaps, as old Bonehead believes, they will be so grateful, they will give us more opt-outs. Even if Barnier wanted to, it wouldn't be allowed.

I know they think the voters, and leavers in particular, are stupid, but come on..

The difficulty of pointing out the flaws in Labour's position is that the Tories have the same idiotic cake and eat it policy, only without a proposal for a solutions however weak.

I think the main effect of Corbyn's speech and the Government's continued vacillation will be indirect - people who felt that the Tories were maybe nasty but competent while Corbyn was nuts are tending to see it as a more nuanced choice (cf. Josiah Jessop below, though he's not poised to vote Labour himself).

We could do with some recent polling on how important people feel Brexit is and how much it will influence their voters. Less than we think or would like, I fancy.

It's very difficult to see how Brexit is a significant theme at the next election. By then it will have happened and the transition will almost certainly be over too. There may be some punishment for Leavers in Remain seats if the Remain voters are still angry, but there won't be a mass flux of Leavers to the Tories (which may be why May thought last year was the optimum time to try and cash in on the Northern disaffection with Corbyn).

Economic issues are likely to be paramount and Corbyn remains weak on those. His one hope is that the government are barely doing better at this moment.

Set against that several years of not doing very much on health, housing and education thanks to the all encompassing preoccupation with Brexit (& May's instinct for procrastination.

Is February the 26th the day Labour stopped being a serious party? Here we are, voters, how about this for a terrific wheeze?

We leave the EU and then negotiate, on their terms, to stay in a customs union that we want. We'll have to accept F.O.M and all the other rules they insist on. Or, perhaps, as old Bonehead believes, they will be so grateful, they will give us more opt-outs. Even if Barnier wanted to, it wouldn't be allowed.

I know they think the voters, and leavers in particular, are stupid, but come on..

No. That happened when they elected Corbyn. He offered them the chance to feel good about themselves ahead of the possibility of winning an election.

Is February the 26th the day Labour stopped being a serious party? Here we are, voters, how about this for a terrific wheeze?

We leave the EU and then negotiate, on their terms, to stay in a customs union that we want. We'll have to accept F.O.M and all the other rules they insist on. Or, perhaps, as old Bonehead believes, they will be so grateful, they will give us more opt-outs. Even if Barnier wanted to, it wouldn't be allowed.

I know they think the voters, and leavers in particular, are stupid, but come on..

The difficulty of pointing out the flaws in Labour's position is that the Tories have the same idiotic cake and eat it policy, only without a proposal for a solutions however weak.

I think the main effect of Corbyn's speech and the Government's continued vacillation will be indirect - people who felt that the Tories were maybe nasty but competent while Corbyn was nuts are tending to see it as a more nuanced choice (cf. Josiah Jessop below, though he's not poised to vote Labour himself).

We could do with some recent polling on how important people feel Brexit is and how much it will influence their voters. Less than we think or would like, I fancy.

It's very difficult to see how Brexit is a significant theme at the next election. By then it will have happened and the transition will almost certainly be over too. There may be some punishment for Leavers in Remain seats if the Remain voters are still angry, but there won't be a mass flux of Leavers to the Tories (which may be why May thought last year was the optimum time to try and cash in on the Northern disaffection with Corbyn).

Economic issues are likely to be paramount and Corbyn remains weak on those. His one hope is that the government are barely doing better at this moment.

Set against that several years of not doing very much on health, housing and education thanks to the all encompassing preoccupation with Brexit (& May's instinct for procrastination.

Several years of not doing much on education would be a definite bonus. The last ten years have been disastrous one way and another, from BSF to the chaos over the new exams to rising rolls and tight budgets.

I think the main effect of Corbyn's speech and the Government's continued vacillation will be indirect - people who felt that the Tories were maybe nasty but competent while Corbyn was nuts are tending to see it as a more nuanced choice (cf. Josiah Jessop below, though he's not poised to vote Labour himself).

We could do with some recent polling on how important people feel Brexit is and how much it will influence their voters. Less than we think or would like, I fancy.

" though he's not poised to vote Labour himself"

I'm not a fan of Corbyn, or of his brand of politics (you'll disagree, but I think we're not seeing the true face of his politics atm). However if this government continues to be a Brexit-obsessed basketcase, and if Corbyn gets some adults around him at the top of Labour, and South Cambs has a good Labour candidate, I would be tempted.

He'd be a disaster, but this government is sleep-walking to disaster anyway. Perhaps it would be time to try another angle.

Is February the 26th the day Labour stopped being a serious party? Here we are, voters, how about this for a terrific wheeze?

We leave the EU and then negotiate, on their terms, to stay in a customs union that we want. We'll have to accept F.O.M and all the other rules they insist on. Or, perhaps, as old Bonehead believes, they will be so grateful, they will give us more opt-outs. Even if Barnier wanted to, it wouldn't be allowed.

I know they think the voters, and leavers in particular, are stupid, but come on..

They have set out a position. As they did in the GE, where they saw that it did them no harm at all.

Is February the 26th the day Labour stopped being a serious party? Here we are, voters, how about this for a terrific wheeze?

We leave the EU and then negotiate, on their terms, to stay in a customs union that we want. We'll have to accept F.O.M and all the other rules they insist on. Or, perhaps, as old Bonehead believes, they will be so grateful, they will give us more opt-outs. Even if Barnier wanted to, it wouldn't be allowed.

I know they think the voters, and leavers in particular, are stupid, but come on..

I’m a Tory remain voter and it is a fantasy that I, or indeed any more than a handful of people like me, are going to vote for Corbyn.

A lot of PBers, and Mike Smithson in particular, need to stop looking at the world through the fuzzy lens of a left of centre Remainer. Out there it isn’t like that.....

Likewise a Labour Leaver like me isn't going to vote for the Tories even if Labour go full-on Remain. I voted Leave because of my politics. Brexit doesn't define my politics.

Brexit is a second order issue for me. I have always thought that this is the case for the vast majority of voters, who won't change party merely based on the relative Brexit policies of the blue and red teams.

Quite. This obsessing about Brexit is political anorak territory.

That rather depends upon the consequences, as and when it actually happens

As a thought experiment, assume that the idea of arming teachers in US schools is introduced. How long after its implementation do you think it would be before there was a mass shooting in a school by a teacher with a government-supplied weapon?

Rare - once every 20 years or so maybe.

There are over 3 million teachers in the US. I’m sure they have their share of troubled souls.

I would imagine you could get a decent estimate by looking at number of school shootings perpetrated by teachers and then adding on a % based on the fact that they are now more likely since they have guns to hand.

There was a case of assault by a teacher in this country eight years ago:

With a gun he might well have killed the boy and maybe gone on a rampage.

But such things are pretty rare.

The key problem with this is it assumes teachers would be willing and able to use their weapons in the case of a shooting. As the police officer's actions in Florida show, that is a reckless assumption.

Trump is possibly the one person who could have used this to tighten gun laws. Just rolling out Texan laws nationwide might be enough. But like a good populist, he told his base what they wanted to hear rather than what they needed to be told.

Worth also noting that US gun deaths by suicide are twice the number of homicides. A teacher suicide in classroom or staffroom is more likely.

I think the main effect of Corbyn's speech and the Government's continued vacillation will be indirect - people who felt that the Tories were maybe nasty but competent while Corbyn was nuts are tending to see it as a more nuanced choice (cf. Josiah Jessop below, though he's not poised to vote Labour himself).

We could do with some recent polling on how important people feel Brexit is and how much it will influence their voters. Less than we think or would like, I fancy.

It's very difficult to see how Brexit is a significant theme at the next election. By then it will have happened and the transition will almost certainly be over too. There may be some punishment for Leavers in Remain seats if the Remain voters are still angry, but there won't be a mass flux of Leavers to the Tories (which may be why May thought last year was the optimum time to try and cash in on the Northern disaffection with Corbyn).

Economic issues are likely to be paramount and Corbyn remains weak on those. His one hope is that the government are barely doing better at this moment.

Set against that several years of not doing very much on health, housing and education thanks to the all encompassing preoccupation with Brexit (& May's instinct for procrastination.

Several years of not doing much on education would be a definite bonus. The last ten years have been disastrous one way and another, from BSF to the chaos over the new exams to rising rolls and tight budgets.

A period of calm would help very considerably.

Several years of not doing very much on school budgets is likely to see some major problems in a significant number of schools. But yes, you have a point otherwise.

I think the main effect of Corbyn's speech and the Government's continued vacillation will be indirect - people who felt that the Tories were maybe nasty but competent while Corbyn was nuts are tending to see it as a more nuanced choice (cf. Josiah Jessop below, though he's not poised to vote Labour himself).

We could do with some recent polling on how important people feel Brexit is and how much it will influence their voters. Less than we think or would like, I fancy.

It's very difficult to see how Brexit is a significant theme at the next election. By then it will have happened and the transition will almost certainly be over too. There may be some punishment for Leavers in Remain seats if the Remain voters are still angry, but there won't be a mass flux of Leavers to the Tories (which may be why May thought last year was the optimum time to try and cash in on the Northern disaffection with Corbyn).

Economic issues are likely to be paramount and Corbyn remains weak on those. His one hope is that the government are barely doing better at this moment.

Set against that several years of not doing very much on health, housing and education thanks to the all encompassing preoccupation with Brexit (& May's instinct for procrastination.

Several years of not doing much on education would be a definite bonus. The last ten years have been disastrous one way and another, from BSF to the chaos over the new exams to rising rolls and tight budgets.

A period of calm would help very considerably.

Several years of not doing very much on school budgets is likely to see some major problems in a significant number of schools. But yes, you have a point otherwise.

Calm is cheaper than change. I have spent thousands on new textbooks to support these exams. That's a one off cost that won't need to be repeated if we don't have more tinkering. That money can then be used elsewhere.

Is February the 26th the day Labour stopped being a serious party? Here we are, voters, how about this for a terrific wheeze?

We leave the EU and then negotiate, on their terms, to stay in a customs union that we want. We'll have to accept F.O.M and all the other rules they insist on. Or, perhaps, as old Bonehead believes, they will be so grateful, they will give us more opt-outs. Even if Barnier wanted to, it wouldn't be allowed.

I know they think the voters, and leavers in particular, are stupid, but come on..

They have set out a position. As they did in the GE, where they saw that it did them no harm at all.

As a thought experiment, assume that the idea of arming teachers in US schools is introduced. How long after its implementation do you think it would be before there was a mass shooting in a school by a teacher with a government-supplied weapon?

Rare - once every 20 years or so maybe.

There are over 3 million teachers in the US. I’m sure they have their share of troubled souls.

I would imagine you could get a decent estimate by looking at number of school shootings perpetrated by teachers and then adding on a % based on the fact that they are now more likely since they have guns to hand.

There was a case of assault by a teacher in this country eight years ago:

With a gun he might well have killed the boy and maybe gone on a rampage.

But such things are pretty rare.

The key problem with this is it assumes teachers would be willing and able to use their weapons in the case of a shooting. As the police officer's actions in Florida show, that is a reckless assumption.

Trump is possibly the one person who could have used this to tighten gun laws. Just rolling out Texan laws nationwide might be enough. But like a good populist, he told his base what they wanted to hear rather than what they needed to be told.

In the US there have been a few shootings perpetrated by teachers (sometimes against other teachers - so not sure whether that counts as far as Mr Meeks thought experiment).

I didn't mind when they elected the silly old Trot. I voted Labour when Foot was in charge, and I had no problems with Kinnock. I did jump ship to the LDs when Blair came along, but even Ed was a democrat.

However, the vilification of political opponents is more worrying since the referendum normalised it. Parliamentary democracy is an unnecessary complication to true Trots, it allows Farmer Jones back into the fold. It may not be likely even if Old Bonehead were PM, but the vilification will reach epic proportions.

As a thought experiment, assume that the idea of arming teachers in US schools is introduced. How long after its implementation do you think it would be before there was a mass shooting in a school by a teacher with a government-supplied weapon?

Rare - once every 20 years or so maybe.

There are over 3 million teachers in the US. I’m sure they have their share of troubled souls.

I would imagine you could get a decent estimate by looking at number of school shootings perpetrated by teachers and then adding on a % based on the fact that they are now more likely since they have guns to hand.

People do tend to grow out of being twats to some extent (doesn't always happen, of course). Make it a rule that armed teachers are in the 35-50 age group, so they are relatively mature but their eyesight is intact.

The problem is, though, that lots of shooters commit suicide (Columbine) or turn out to have had suicide plans which they failed to carry out. If it were me I'd much rather be shot and killed by someone else than by myself and this is quite common - "suicide by cop" - so armed teachers might be an attraction rather than deterrent.

Several years of not doing much on education would be a definite bonus. The last ten years have been disastrous one way and another, from BSF to the chaos over the new exams to rising rolls and tight budgets.

A period of calm would help very considerably.

There's some evidence that promising more money to schools was a big vote winner at the last election. Given that the Tories plan to continue cuts - I wouldn't be surprised if education played an even larger role at the next election.

I think the main effect of Corbyn's speech and the Government's continued vacillation will be indirect - people who felt that the Tories were maybe nasty but competent while Corbyn was nuts are tending to see it as a more nuanced choice (cf. Josiah Jessop below, though he's not poised to vote Labour himself).

We could do with some recent polling on how important people feel Brexit is and how much it will influence their voters. Less than we think or would like, I fancy.

It's very difficult to see how Brexit is a significant theme at the next election. By then it will have happened and the transition will almost certainly be over too. There may be some punishment for Leavers in Remain seats if the Remain voters are still angry, but there won't be a mass flux of Leavers to the Tories (which may be why May thought last year was the optimum time to try and cash in on the Northern disaffection with Corbyn).

Economic issues are likely to be paramount and Corbyn remains weak on those. His one hope is that the government are barely doing better at this moment.

Set against that several years of not doing very much on health, housing and education thanks to the all encompassing preoccupation with Brexit (& May's instinct for procrastination.

Several years of not doing much on education would be a definite bonus. The last ten years have been disastrous one way and another, from BSF to the chaos over the new exams to rising rolls and tight budgets.

A period of calm would help very considerably.

Have you tried this to liven up your classroom? The Ron Clark maths teacher in New York

I think the main effect of Corbyn's speech and the Government's continued vacillation will be indirect - people who felt that the Tories were maybe nasty but competent while Corbyn was nuts are tending to see it as a more nuanced choice (cf. Josiah Jessop below, though he's not poised to vote Labour himself).

We could do with some recent polling on how important people feel Brexit is and how much it will influence their voters. Less than we think or would like, I fancy.

It's very difficult to see how Brexit is a significant theme at the next election. By then it will have happened and the transition will almost certainly be over too. There may be some punishment for Leavers in Remain seats if the Remain voters are still angry, but there won't be a mass flux of Leavers to the Tories (which may be why May thought last year was the optimum time to try and cash in on the Northern disaffection with Corbyn).

Economic issues are likely to be paramount and Corbyn remains weak on those. His one hope is that the government are barely doing better at this moment.

If the "transition" is over by the next election we will be in WTO outer space and wondering what the hell we do to get out of it. Brexit is nailed on to be the dominant feature of the next election.

I think the main effect of Corbyn's speech and the Government's continued vacillation will be indirect - people who felt that the Tories were maybe nasty but competent while Corbyn was nuts are tending to see it as a more nuanced choice (cf. Josiah Jessop below, though he's not poised to vote Labour himself).

We could do with some recent polling on how important people feel Brexit is and how much it will influence their voters. Less than we think or would like, I fancy.

It's very difficult to see how Brexit is a significant theme at the next election. By then it will have happened and the transition will almost certainly be over too. There may be some punishment for Leavers in Remain seats if the Remain voters are still angry, but there won't be a mass flux of Leavers to the Tories (which may be why May thought last year was the optimum time to try and cash in on the Northern disaffection with Corbyn).

Economic issues are likely to be paramount and Corbyn remains weak on those. His one hope is that the government are barely doing better at this moment.

Set against that several years of not doing very much on health, housing and education thanks to the all encompassing preoccupation with Brexit (& May's instinct for procrastination.

Several years of not doing much on education would be a definite bonus. The last ten years have been disastrous one way and another, from BSF to the chaos over the new exams to rising rolls and tight budgets.

A period of calm would help very considerably.

Several years of not doing very much on school budgets is likely to see some major problems in a significant number of schools. But yes, you have a point otherwise.

Calm is cheaper than change. I have spent thousands on new textbooks to support these exams. That's a one off cost that won't need to be repeated if we don't have more tinkering. That money can then be used elsewhere.

I’m a Tory remain voter and it is a fantasy that I, or indeed any more than a handful of people like me, are going to vote for Corbyn.

A lot of PBers, and Mike Smithson in particular, need to stop looking at the world through the fuzzy lens of a left of centre Remainer. Out there it isn’t like that.....

Likewise a Labour Leaver like me isn't going to vote for the Tories even if Labour go full-on Remain. I voted Leave because of my politics. Brexit doesn't define my politics.

Brexit is a second order issue for me. I have always thought that this is the case for the vast majority of voters, who won't change party merely based on the relative Brexit policies of the blue and red teams.

But plenty will. It's much more important than the relatively trivial matter of who will be in government for the next five years.

I think the main effect of Corbyn's speech and the Government's continued vacillation will be indirect - people who felt that the Tories were maybe nasty but competent while Corbyn was nuts are tending to see it as a more nuanced choice (cf. Josiah Jessop below, though he's not poised to vote Labour himself).

We could do with some recent polling on how important people feel Brexit is and how much it will influence their voters. Less than we think or would like, I fancy.

It's very difficult to see how Brexit is a significant theme at the next election. By then it will have happened and the transition will almost certainly be over too. There may be some punishment for Leavers in Remain seats if the Remain voters are still angry, but there won't be a mass flux of Leavers to the Tories (which may be why May thought last year was the optimum time to try and cash in on the Northern disaffection with Corbyn).

Economic issues are likely to be paramount and Corbyn remains weak on those. His one hope is that the government are barely doing better at this moment.

If the "transition" is over by the next election we will be in WTO outer space and wondering what the hell we do to get out of it. Brexit is nailed on to be the dominant feature of the next election.

I know it’s six or seven months away, but unless we’ve moved on significantly, the next Tory conference could be a bloodbath.

Several years of not doing much on education would be a definite bonus. The last ten years have been disastrous one way and another, from BSF to the chaos over the new exams to rising rolls and tight budgets.

A period of calm would help very considerably.

There's some evidence that promising more money to schools was a big vote winner at the last election. Given that the Tories plan to continue cuts - I wouldn't be surprised if education played an even larger role at the next election.

The May elections will have Tories talking about Brexit and Labour about austerity.

Is February the 26th the day Labour stopped being a serious party? Here we are, voters, how about this for a terrific wheeze?

We leave the EU and then negotiate, on their terms, to stay in a customs union that we want. We'll have to accept F.O.M and all the other rules they insist on. Or, perhaps, as old Bonehead believes, they will be so grateful, they will give us more opt-outs. Even if Barnier wanted to, it wouldn't be allowed.

I know they think the voters, and leavers in particular, are stupid, but come on..

They have set out a position. As they did in the GE, where they saw that it did them no harm at all.

cf Tories.

It didn't win them power.

So no "harm" - but no point either.

Indeed it didn’t win them power but it drew people to them and they did better than anyone thought. In that sense it was a good move.

I think the main effect of Corbyn's speech and the Government's continued vacillation will be indirect - people who felt that the Tories were maybe nasty but competent while Corbyn was nuts are tending to see it as a more nuanced choice (cf. Josiah Jessop below, though he's not poised to vote Labour himself).

We could do with some recent polling on how important people feel Brexit is and how much it will influence their voters. Less than we think or would like, I fancy.

" though he's not poised to vote Labour himself"

I'm not a fan of Corbyn, or of his brand of politics (you'll disagree, but I think we're not seeing the true face of his politics atm). However if this government continues to be a Brexit-obsessed basketcase, and if Corbyn gets some adults around him at the top of Labour, and South Cambs has a good Labour candidate, I would be tempted.

He'd be a disaster, but this government is sleep-walking to disaster anyway. Perhaps it would be time to try another angle.

That['s how bad this 'Conservative' government is...

You don't (in my opinion) give enough credence to just how difficult and all-consuming it is to move from a system of government massively overseen by Brussels, to one which is significantly less so. On one hand, you have a set of EU negotiators with essentially two aims: a) milk as much from the UK as they can, to plug their budget gap caused by their second largest contributor leaving and b) deliver a deal to which no other EU country will say "You know what, that would do us too...."

On the other hand you have a Government with an admittedly self-inflicted gunshot wound to the feet, trying to weave a way through to deliver a people's verdict that many elected politicians are very, very snooty about, tried to stop, are trying to stop - and have been complicit in decades of binding us tightly into the EU, supposedly so as to make it impossible to have ever come about. Add toys-out-the-pram hissy fits on one side and an almost religious fervour to escape Brussels clutches on the other.

And then add a narrow - but big enough - initial mandate for the process and a tiny Parliamentary majority on a good day, and stalemate on a bad one.

And THEN add in grave consequences for the economy of delivering a bad deal - and even worse consequences for democracy of not delivering Brexit at all.

I don't think you could say it is sleep-walking to disaster. With that set of conflicting elements to meld together in a little over a year, I doubt there is very much sleep at the heart of government.

We don't need 3.2m Tory voters to switch to Labour. The Labour AND the Tory vote in 2017 would have been enough for a thumping majority had a few million of the other party's supporters stayed home.

All that is needed for a Labour majority is for some of the unpatriotic traitor remain voters to not vote Tory. If targeted efficiently across the country a few tens of thousands would be sufficient.

That is the big risk to the Tories (started typing May, then realised it doesn't affect her...) - their own voters hear the abuse thrown at them and sit the next one out

+1

There are no positive reasons to vote Conservative for most Conservative voters, only negative ones not to vote for Labour or (ha!) the Lib Dems.

That'll cause people to stay at home.

May needs a positive vision for the country, and fast. F*** Brexit.

There are no positive reasons currently to vote for any parties. I follow politics. I like politics. I should be a voter therefore and I have voted in every election up until 2010. Now I have joined the ranks of the non voters as I just look at the parties and realise none of them offer a single thing I wish to vote for (yes I did vote in the referendum)

the EU27 has said “no ‘cherry-picking’”! Except…it hasn’t said that, in this area. The EU negotiation guidelines only state that position in relation to single market issues. But shouldn’t that same rule apply here anyway, for the sake of consistency? You might think so, except in the area of external security (see below) the Commission is quite happy to contemplate a bespoke arrangement. And in the area of fisheries, it strongly endorses it. The “no cherry picking” rule is thus a political choice, which the Commission argues for in some areas, and argues against in others.